BoxRec

bripez wrote:

JamieM wrote:As much as I like Ricky and to be honest Billy is ok aswell I cant but help that they have made a big mistake, I dont know the money situation but what I do know if I am in FW situation and im owe someone money and they break a contract and crap on me for a rival I wont pay the money until I am forced.

Say you ask a builder to builder to build a wall at the front of your house for £1,000 and you mention that after that you might also want him to build a wall at the back of your house.

Anyway, the builder builds the wall at the front of your house and you give him £200 (saying that you will give him the other £800 later).

In the meantime your neighbour asks him to build a wall for him, which means that the builder now cannot build the wall at the back of your house.

I could understand you being annoyed at this, but as he has already built the front wall then surely you should pay him the remaining £800 outstanding and not withhold this on the basis that he won't be building the back wall ?

To be honest, I would tell him to F*** off. I wouldn't speak to the twat next door, either.

mickey1975 wrote:

bripez wrote:

JamieM wrote:As much as I like Ricky and to be honest Billy is ok aswell I cant but help that they have made a big mistake, I dont know the money situation but what I do know if I am in FW situation and im owe someone money and they break a contract and crap on me for a rival I wont pay the money until I am forced.

Say you ask a builder to builder to build a wall at the front of your house for £1,000 and you mention that after that you might also want him to build a wall at the back of your house.

Anyway, the builder builds the wall at the front of your house and you give him £200 (saying that you will give him the other £800 later).

In the meantime your neighbour asks him to build a wall for him, which means that the builder now cannot build the wall at the back of your house.

I could understand you being annoyed at this, but as he has already built the front wall then surely you should pay him the remaining £800 outstanding and not withhold this on the basis that he won't be building the back wall ?

To be honest, I would tell him to F*** off. I wouldn't speak to the twat next door, either.

That seems to be the route taken by others in similar situations !!

Black Sam Bellamy wrote:JimJim2009, time to come clean. You've got a major beef with Warren. 99% of your posts are anti Warren. It's like clockwork. Has he done you wrong ? Are you actually Eddie Hearn in disguise ? Come on, it's time to unmask yourself once and for all !!

Okay, you got me - I'm Eddie Hearn !

Chill out mate, I criticise all sorts of things on here Bellamy; no need to stalk my posts - its not that important is it ? The promoter in question gives folk on a boxing forum plenty to talk about. The only thread I've started on him lately is the one about the Copperbox 3 show falling apart. I did it in late 2013 before a single fight had fallen through. Not my fault all the bouts then went tits up, is it ? On that front, I have a beef with anyone who prints a fight poster and announces a series of fights, when they are patently not signed and sealed. If Eddie Hearn carried on like this I'd comment too.

Eddie launched his wales show in December, and announced Rees vs Buckland, Selby vs Munroe, Joshua vs Darch and Cook vs Pace about two months in advance. Guess what - they've all held together. Fwank announced his Copperbox 3 show at more or less the same time and it fell apart one after the other. However, Fwank did well to sign the Fury's and the next time you're trawling through my posts to see what I'm up to, watch out for the ones where I am praising Fwank for his efforts to save the Copperbox show

Say you ask a builder to builder to build a wall at the front of your house for £1,000 and you mention that after that you might also want him to build a wall at the back of your house.

Anyway, the builder builds the wall at the front of your house and you give him £200 (saying that you will give him the other £800 later).

In the meantime your neighbour asks him to build a wall for him, which means that the builder now cannot build the wall at the back of your house.

I could understand you being annoyed at this, but as he has already built the front wall then surely you should pay him the remaining £800 outstanding and not withhold this on the basis that he won't be building the back wall ?[/quote]

Alternatively, the builder doesn't put up a brick or stone wall; what you get instead is a wooden fence. He assures you it is an intercontinental wooden fence, just as good as a brick or stone wall, but cheaper, and most folk passing by won't notice the difference

Im just saying id do the same in FW position, if someone shits on me I dont go out my way to help, I dont know full facts on Ricky Burns but something in my head tells me hes broke the contract and thats Why Morrison is trying to expose FW. There is away to be major changes in boxing if Ricky wins the case as the contracts are not worth the paper they are written on then??

JamieM wrote:Im just saying id do the same in FW position, if someone shits on me I dont go out my way to help, I dont know full facts on Ricky Burns but something in my head tells me hes broke the contract and thats Why Morrison is trying to expose FW. There is away to be major changes in boxing if Ricky wins the case as the contracts are not worth the paper they are written on then??

So Ricky should abide by a contract regardless of whether he's actually getting paid?

What about the contract between Ricky and Fwank that says that Ricky should be paid x amount by date y? If that contract has been broken, then Fwank is already in the wrong.

Black Sam Bellamy wrote:JimJim2009, time to come clean. You've got a major beef with Warren. 99% of your posts are anti Warren. It's like clockwork. Has he done you wrong ? Are you actually Eddie Hearn in disguise ? Come on, it's time to unmask yourself once and for all !!

Are you cool with it then?

earsjohn wrote:

JamieM wrote:Im just saying id do the same in FW position, if someone shits on me I dont go out my way to help, I dont know full facts on Ricky Burns but something in my head tells me hes broke the contract and thats Why Morrison is trying to expose FW. There is away to be major changes in boxing if Ricky wins the case as the contracts are not worth the paper they are written on then??

So Ricky should abide by a contract regardless of whether he's actually getting paid?

What about the contract between Ricky and Fwank that says that Ricky should be paid x amount by date y? If that contract has been broken, then Fwank is already in the wrong.

It's a pretty ridiculous argument we have :

A: A fighter contractually promised X amount of money that has not been delivered.

B: A promoter who has ripped off a number of fighters in the past and has closed down his own companies to start new ones so as to avoid paying said fighters.

Which side to take

This could get interesting.

During the last round of rumours about a certain promoter allegedly not paying his boxers, Robert Smith went on Ringside and said that they could not do anything unless a boxer contacted them and put the details in writing.

I wonder what the BBBofC will do now ?? ........... frig all I bet. They will either say that the correct complaint form has not been completed in triplicate or that they don't get involved in these disputes.

And there are people who put the BBofC on some kind of high moral ground (self appointed) body above all other bodies.

Messy messy situation.

The fwank giveth, and the fwank taketh away. Burns would not have been a champion if not for fwank.

The timing of this is strange to me, why wait more than a year to state this.

I think FW just wants a court case, because he has deeper pockets and Burns would be well warned not to go down this route as he could lose his earnings chasing nothing.

Boxing is in the shit it is in because of situations like this. You don't see this in football, because UEFA and FIFA control everything! The machine is bigger than the cogs - not the same in boxing.

For those who support Fwank in this matter, it is important to bear in mind that ten thousand fans (that's the attendance figure according to the BBC fight report) paid the promoter very good money to watch this fight live, and tens of thousands of B ox N ation subscribers paid the same promoter (via the TV company) ten quid apiece for that month's subscription; Burns vs Mitchell was the channel's big show that month. Plus the sponsors, overseas rights, etc. The promoter got the lot.

Burns evidently wasn't paid in full, and he didn't leave Fwank for another six months. So what justification is there for the promoter keeping a very, very substantial amount of money from the guy who got in the ring and fought ?

JimJim2009 wrote:

Black Sam Bellamy wrote:JimJim2009, time to come clean. You've got a major beef with Warren. 99% of your posts are anti Warren. It's like clockwork. Has he done you wrong ? Are you actually Eddie Hearn in disguise ? Come on, it's time to unmask yourself once and for all !!

Okay, you got me - I'm Eddie Hearn !

Chill out mate, I criticise all sorts of things on here Bellamy; no need to stalk my posts - its not that important is it ? The promoter in question gives folk on a boxing forum plenty to talk about. The only thread I've started on him lately is the one about the Copperbox 3 show falling apart. I did it in late 2013 before a single fight had fallen through. Not my fault all the bouts then went tits up, is it ? On that front, I have a beef with anyone who prints a fight poster and announces a series of fights, when they are patently not signed and sealed. If Eddie Hearn carried on like this I'd comment too.

Eddie launched his wales show in December, and announced Rees vs Buckland, Selby vs Munroe, Joshua vs Darch and Cook vs Pace about two months in advance. Guess what - they've all held together. Fwank announced his Copperbox 3 show at more or less the same time and it fell apart one after the other. However, Fwank did well to sign the Fury's and the next time you're trawling through my posts to see what I'm up to, watch out for the ones where I am praising Fwank for his efforts to save the Copperbox show

Which fights on Copperbox 3 have fallen apart ?

Which fights on Copperbox 3 have fallen apart ?[/quote]

All five title fights, as advertised on B o x N a t i on' s schedule in late December, have fallen through.

Chisora's defence of the European heavyweight title.
Saunders defending his British & Commonwealth middleweight championships.
Cleverley vs Ammann for the Commonwealth cruiserweight championship.
Skeete defending his English welterweight championship.
Walsh vs Sykes for the British & Commonwealth super featherweight championships.

So in terms of fights falling through completely, its Walsh/Sykes, Cleverley/Ammann, and Saunders/tba.

In terms of diluting what was first talked about and billed, Chisora was meant to be defending his European heavyweight title. I predicted well in advance that they would get an unknown challenger, that this challenger would fall through, that the European title wouldn't be up for grabs on the night, and that the ever-obliging WBA/WBO intercontinental titles would be the ones at stake on the night. That's not because I can see into the future, it is because that is precisely what happened on Copperbox 2. Most fans would agree that an intercontinental title fight usually has contestants of less substance than a European championship.

However, in fairness, Skeete vs Vivian Harris is far better than Skeete defending his British title. That said, it hasn't happened yet.
And credit is certainly due to Fwank for getting Tyson and Hughie Fury on the bill. And, I would also say well done for getting Kevin Johnson - I was expecting far, far worse. And whilst I'm in the mood for praising Fwank, I have to say well done for his efforts in bringing together the Fury / Chisora rematch. It isn't signed and sealed yet, but it looks possible and it could only happen with the work of a major promoter. I think it will come off and well done to Fwank in advance. It shows he still has clout.

Does that answer your question Bellamy ?

JamieM wrote:I dont know full facts on Ricky Burns but something in my head tells me hes broke the contract

Deadendgeneration wrote:

earsjohn wrote:

JamieM wrote:Im just saying id do the same in FW position, if someone shits on me I dont go out my way to help, I dont know full facts on Ricky Burns but something in my head tells me hes broke the contract and thats Why Morrison is trying to expose FW. There is away to be major changes in boxing if Ricky wins the case as the contracts are not worth the paper they are written on then??

So Ricky should abide by a contract regardless of whether he's actually getting paid?

What about the contract between Ricky and Fwank that says that Ricky should be paid x amount by date y? If that contract has been broken, then Fwank is already in the wrong.

It's a pretty ridiculous argument we have :

A: A fighter contractually promised X amount of money that has not been delivered.

B: A promoter who has ripped off a number of fighters in the past and has closed down his own companies to start new ones so as to avoid paying said fighters.

Which side to take

Exactly. I'm amazed at those who could possibly take any other perspective.

Deserter wrote:

Deadendgeneration wrote:

earsjohn wrote:
So Ricky should abide by a contract regardless of whether he's actually getting paid?

What about the contract between Ricky and Fwank that says that Ricky should be paid x amount by date y? If that contract has been broken, then Fwank is already in the wrong.

It's a pretty ridiculous argument we have :

A: A fighter contractually promised X amount of money that has not been delivered.

B: A promoter who has ripped off a number of fighters in the past and has closed down his own companies to start new ones so as to avoid paying said fighters.

Which side to take

Exactly. I'm amazed at those who could possibly take any other perspective.

puzzles me no end the people willing to stick up for FW on here.

Depending on the payment terms under the Burns contract, Warren may have breached the contract by not paying Burns his money due within a reasonable time. If so, Burns then "accepted" this breach by walking away. That does not stop him from suing if Warren's failure to pay him is deemed a 'fundamental' breach of the contract.

What Warren is claiming (i.e. that he is holding the sums back to cover what he would be paid under future fights) is basically the legal argument of "equitable set-off": e.g. I'm not paying x, as the contract demands, because I'm owed y by the other party. Clearly, this argument doesn't work if Warren already fundamentally breached the contract by not paying Burns, as the contract would already have terminated and his right to take a promoter's slice of the action would have correspondingly ended.

Much depends on the exact terms of the contract, in particular when payments were supposed to be made, whether the contract allows "set-off", and whether the contract allows a party to terminate the contract in the event of breach by the other party.

After reading this thread again i decided that big Fwank can do without my money so i phoned up and cancelled allegedly.
So thanks gents, been tempted to cancel it for a while and this has given me the motivation i required.

earsjohn wrote:Ingrates.

Ingrate? He waived the cheque.

King Tubby wrote:

earsjohn wrote:Ingrates.

Ingrate? He waived the cheque.

I got earsjohn's gag if it makes him feel any better.

jameswilson wrote:

King Tubby wrote:

earsjohn wrote:Ingrates.

Ingrate? He waived the cheque.

I got earsjohn's gag if it makes him feel any better.

It does.

Now Alex Morrison owes F rank W arren money.

Looks like 100k if this article is to be believed.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scott ... ng-2008365

Black Sam Bellamy wrote:Looks like 100k if this article is to be believed.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scott ... ng-2008365

He does love a legal case does Frank - I bet his brief is minted !

bripez wrote: I bet his brief is minted !

Best paid man in British boxing, allegedly.